Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by nixie_nox


You are clearly not understanding this.



Oh I understand all right.

That I 'reject evolution' by stating it's a requirement that things must evolve while in an open system that drastically changes.

And that you a 'supporting evolution' by saying it doesn't have to happen in an open system that drastically changes.


Oi vey.

You are trying to simplify it as things have to change or doesn't have to change.
Yes the environment is always changing, yes it can force changes in evolution. But sometimes a characteristic is enough to get through changes.

The american alligator is 65 million years old. Florida, has definetly changes thousands of times, but obviously those characteristics help the species to survive those drastic changes.

And if you and I were to walk up to an alligator or croc right now, it could still hand our asses to us, run fast on land, swim fast in water, and does just fine. Obviously the traits that help it survive, keep it surviving no matter the conditions.

But that is just the alligator. Others have had to adapt fast or die out, and many do. Millions of species adaptations didn't make it.


I twisted everything around to show the weakness of the entire system of beliefs that people have been indoctrinated into accepting without question. We are in double-contradictory positions now.


No, not really. You can't even understand the difference between a species and an attribute it carries.


This will be a hard one to dig out of.
Mainstream biology is clearly in a crisis and cannot make up it's mind.

I already rejected the religious junk a long time ago, and am currently looking for a workable hypothesis but sadly am faced with two very poor alternatives and will have to take the 3rd door.


Go right ahead. If you can't be bothered to actually understand evolutionary biology.




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I already rejected the religious junk a long time ago, and am currently looking for a workable hypothesis but sadly am faced with two very poor alternatives and will have to take the 3rd door.


I'm very much liking your posts, there is another way. Check out the lecture from James Shapiro I posted on the first page. Cells are cognitive entities capable of rearanging thier own genetic structure in response to specific challenges. Eg. The protozoa can actually splice it's own DNA into thousands of pieces and rearange them so the next generation is well adapted to the new environment.

Horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, genome doubling, adaptive mutation, epigenics and more.. All of these make simple one or two point mutations of random mutation pale in comparison.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


Because STUDEN of history, if they tried to explain it to you, especially after you saying something like blood cells will float away without arteries, they are not going to bother explaining Genome fusion, RNA world hypothesis, or the Darwinian transition. It would be like me, trying to explain the inner workings of an ipod to a penguin in South AFrica.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I used to subscribe to the theory of evolution until I started reading about it. There are lots of problems with it that mainstream scientists just ignore. Here is for me the most obvious one.

Life supposedly developed as single cell organisms, that reproduce by cell division. But the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says that at some point single cell organisms evolved into multi-cell organisms. In a multi-cell organism, each cell is specialized. Skin cells can't survive without oxygen and food delivered by blood cells, Same for all other cell types. And while all of the cells resulted from cell division (as stem cells) they then transformed, not unlike a catapiller into a butterfly, into specialized cells like skin cells, brain cells, muscle cells, etc.

So how did a single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism?
Did thousands of single cells cluster together and decide amongst themselves to specialize? "You become a blood cell, I'll become a skin cell and you over there...you're going to be muscle cell" ?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Well what if one single cell divided into two and each of those two became specialized? Won't work because if one of the two is now a skin cell for example, how will it survive without blood? If the other cell is now a blood cell, what's to prevent it from floating away if there's no arteries to hold the blood in?

And I haven't even touched on the mystery of how single cell organisms with only one set of chromosomes became specialized cells with two sets of chromosomes resulting from a male and female donor.

If you ask any expert in the fields of biology, genetics or bio-chemistry how this happened, their eyes glaze over, they mumble something that sounds like "I don't know' and they walk away.

I wish I could remember which Nobel prize winning scientist said that if the theory of evolution were tested with the same standards as any other theory, it would fail miserably.

Intelligent Design is the obvious answer to these mysteries.


intelligent design is NOT the answer...a 4 year degree in biology is, or the painstakingly long list of research carried out by hundreds of dedicated men and women of the chemical, biological disciplines throughout the past couple of centuries.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You don't understand that the Coelacanth is an attribute on a fish, not a species. The species changed, they kept the attribute, but just barely as there are only two fish left with it.


Did I say it was a species? Or did I just vaguely describe it as an ancient fish? It's an order of fish though to be specific.

Do you have evidence they changed? Please provide that for me to review, thanks.

My sources are claiming that

The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.


If it's been in it's "current form" for 400million years, could you explain what parts changed?

Here is a link you should check out, it even has an interactive feature where you can check out it's body parts:
Anatomy

LiveScience


A group of ancient fish, called coelacanths, have changed so little over time they are known as "living fossils." Now, the remains of a skull found in the Yunnan Province of China, confirms these creatures have been around, largely unchanged, for more than 400 million years.



The newest fossil evidence, the remains of a skull, date back to almost the same time and contain more definitive features that indicate both it and the Australian fossil were "modern" coelacanths, according to the study researchers writing in the April 10 issue of the journal Nature Communications.



The discovery reinforces what was already suspected about coelacanths: After a period of rapid diversification long ago,these fish have remained pretty much the same over hundreds of millions of years, according to Matt Friedman, a lecturer in paleobiology at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the research.


So who is making absurd claims? You said "The species changed, they kept the attribute, but just barely as there are only two fish left with it."
Which attribute? You mean all of them? Since it's virtually the same?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





You would think 400 million years is enough time for evolving at least a tiny bit...considering the Dinosaurs are claimed to have went extinct only 60 some odd million years ago.
So....who wants to try explaining this glaring problem to me?

What mechanism causes evolution to occur in almost all these other species but the oldest species of all, the Coelacanth, stays the same?



Your words.


edit on 1-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Part of the reason why this is an interesting discovery is that people think of coelacanths animals as archetypal living fossils,” said Matt Friedman, evolutionary biology graduate student at Chicago and lead author of the paper. “But it’s a common misconception. If you look deep in the fossil record to the first members of that group, they are really different and very diverse.”



www-news.uchicago.edu...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I already rejected the religious junk a long time ago, and am currently looking for a workable hypothesis but sadly am faced with two very poor alternatives and will have to take the 3rd door.


I'm very much liking your posts, there is another way. Check out the lecture from James Shapiro I posted on the first page. Cells are cognitive entities capable of rearanging thier own genetic structure in response to specific challenges. Eg. The protozoa can actually splice it's own DNA into thousands of pieces and rearange them so the next generation is well adapted to the new environment.

Horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, genome doubling, adaptive mutation, epigenics and more.. All of these make simple one or two point mutations of random mutation pale in comparison.


Thanks, I'll go check out the video today and watch it all the way through. I appreciate it.

In the meantime, I'll share with you a link I just came across that seems to make some really good points.
Living Fossils : No Change

The article calls evolution theory into question heavily and doesn't seem to mention any religious notions and sticks purely with the facts and cites sources.

Apparently there are thousands of species that can be called "Living Fossils" and haven't changed for vast periods of time.

I am not going to say the author of that article is 100% right because it's hard for anyone to approach that kind of accuracy but their claims and suggestions are certainly food for thought and reinforce my own conception that we "modern people" don't actually know very much about our surroundings or history.

Gonna go check out your link, thx again.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


If you want proof of evolution lo and behold look no further than the bibles !

The story of the towel of Babel is either complete BS or a description of evolution the choice is yours .



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Part of the reason why this is an interesting discovery is that people think of coelacanths animals as archetypal living fossils,” said Matt Friedman, evolutionary biology graduate student at Chicago and lead author of the paper. “But it’s a common misconception. If you look deep in the fossil record to the first members of that group, they are really different and very diverse.”



www-news.uchicago.edu...


It's well known that initially the order was very diverse and changed rapidly, or at least it is thought to be.

The claim was that after a certain point, it ceased evolving and remained the same for 400million years.
After that initial phase.

And sorry you're right I did accidentally say species twice, but you said it accidentally as well if you check up the page. Simple mistake I'll forgive your's if you forgive mine.
The quote I have above is from the same Professor, Matt Friedman.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Part of the reason why this is an interesting discovery is that people think of coelacanths animals as archetypal living fossils,” said Matt Friedman, evolutionary biology graduate student at Chicago and lead author of the paper. “But it’s a common misconception. If you look deep in the fossil record to the first members of that group, they are really different and very diverse.”



www-news.uchicago.edu...


Here is the quote exactly so you will see:


The discovery reinforces what was already suspected about coelacanths: After a period of rapid diversification long ago,these fish have remained pretty much the same over hundreds of millions of years, according to Matt Friedman, a lecturer in paleobiology at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the research.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChristianJihad
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


If you want proof of evolution lo and behold look no further than the bibles !

The story of the towel of Babel is either complete BS or a description of evolution the choice is yours .


Huh?

Are you saying that before the Tower of Babel, it was all neanderthals (or whatever)?
And that after the Tower, they evolved into homo sapiens?

Because speaking a different language isn't evolution.
It's the use of our minds and vocal apparatus which were already evolved and didn't need to change in order to speak different languages.

So no, there is no proof that any creatures "evolved" into another species 6000-8000years ago, that I know of.
If there is please share I'd like to see it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Do you have a link for this?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I already rejected the religious junk a long time ago, and am currently looking for a workable hypothesis but sadly am faced with two very poor alternatives and will have to take the 3rd door.


I'm very much liking your posts, there is another way. Check out the lecture from James Shapiro I posted on the first page. Cells are cognitive entities capable of rearanging thier own genetic structure in response to specific challenges. Eg. The protozoa can actually splice it's own DNA into thousands of pieces and rearange them so the next generation is well adapted to the new environment.

Horizontal gene transfer, transposition, symbiogenesis, genome doubling, adaptive mutation, epigenics and more.. All of these make simple one or two point mutations of random mutation pale in comparison.


Thanks, I'll go check out the video today and watch it all the way through. I appreciate it.

In the meantime, I'll share with you a link I just came across that seems to make some really good points.
Living Fossils : No Change

The article calls evolution theory into question heavily and doesn't seem to mention any religious notions and sticks purely with the facts and cites sources.

Apparently there are thousands of species that can be called "Living Fossils" and haven't changed for vast periods of time.

I am not going to say the author of that article is 100% right because it's hard for anyone to approach that kind of accuracy but their claims and suggestions are certainly food for thought and reinforce my own conception that we "modern people" don't actually know very much about our surroundings or history.

Gonna go check out your link, thx again.


The genetic sequence of an organism can change without any physiological or morphological change whatsoever because the overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral. Natural selection is not random--if there's no competitive advantage for an organism to change, it won't.

So unless you've got 200 million year old DNA from a coelacanth we can compare, your "living fossils" prove nothing.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If you wiped out all of the holy books, churches, and biblical knowledge from our heads, it could never be reproduced exactly the same way again.

If you destroyed every scientific discovery ever made, it would all eventually be found again.

The speed of light doesn't care about who you are.

Gravity doesn't care about who you are.

Protons, neutrons, and electrons don't care what you think.

And following this trend, evolution too does not care about what you think.

You can think whatever you want, but it will never impact reality. Ever. You could know with all certainty in your heart that 2+2=5 and it doesn't change a damn thing.

Lies die, and the truth lives on forever even if unspoken.

If there is a god, we need to face the fact that these are the rules by which we live. In essence, science gets closer to finding out what god is than any religious book ever could. Because I refuse to believe that god is the ugly and hateful menace that so many preachers like to instill in us. Especially when those who believe are so hateful themselves as to shun and abhor my very existence.

And no, they don't do so just because I'm agnostic. There are other reasons.

But I regress, and will affirm that through all of my learned knowledge and understanding of the world, evolution far outweighs the evidence of a original creation the way in which so many describe it. To me, the only reasonable stance by religious people left is that god created the rules the way they are.

Believe, but don't give in to ignorance.



edit on 1-8-2012 by nuclear12346 because: grammar



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Language has been evolving for thousands of years my friend and continues to do so as we speak dude.
Evolution is by definition the process of small changes over long periods of time and it is highly unlikely that Homosapiens would have reached such incredible heights had not grunts and stickwaving evolved into the thousands of languages across the globe.

Creationism is primarily argued by those insistant upon the reality of yahwhe as the creator of all that is,was and will ever be, and allthough the book of Yahwhe contradicts itself on the matter of language it is quite evident that the variety of languages we have now were certainly not created at that time by yahwhe.

I rarely get into the Evolution verses Creation debate as language is the "Elephant in the room" and what I have noticed over a period of speaking with young people that have not been brainwashed by the Yahwhe/Jesus thumpers is that they've figured it out themselves very quickly because it is so obvious.

No doubt you will come back with some skewed argument that language is somehow seperate from the process of surviaval of the specieis or perhaps some ludicrous rationalization that yahwhe/jesus created our languages individually. Perhaps even that the real creator in the sky is not Yahwhe but some esoteric being beyond our understanding that was watching in the wings while the Yahwe story was being kicked about.

Language is evolution in action my friend and we are one of the intermediate species slowly imperceptably perhaps moving into the future .

edit on 1-8-2012 by ChristianJihad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


This is the last time I am going to try to explain evolution to you as educating you is getting tedious.

The characteristics that make a coelacanths a coelacanths is what stopped evolving. If it had kept evolving, it would of changed into something else.

That does not mean that the species of fish itself, if which there are several in the coelacanths group, haven't changed. It didn't change as dramatically as others, it is still a fish. But dramatic change isn't always needed.

Here is a perfect example:


Rebellatrix, most importantly, shatters the commonly held notion that coelacanths were an evolutionarily stagnant group in that their body shape and lifestyle changed little since the origin of the group,” Wendruff said. “Rebellatrix is dramatically different from any coelacanth previously known, and thus had undergone significant evolutionary change in its ancestry.”


The coelacanth (pronounced SEE-la-kanth) is a primitive, slow-moving fish that is often referred to as a living fossil because it has existed largely unchanged for more than 300 million years. But the new discovery, dubbed Rebellatrix, is bizarre compared to other coelacanth discoveries, either living or extinct, according to Andrew Wendruff, a University of Alberta biologist.


www.redorbit.com



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Evolution is not just (proved) scientific theory, but a process. In other words, it is still happening and we, as well all other life on earth are part of that process.

Evolution is not there to explain beginning of life on earth, it is just observation how life changed trough time and how living organisms adopted over time.

Latest discoveries in genetics proved that we (humans) interbreed with other species and we are not final product of evolution.

Juan Enriques had nice Ted Talk about evolution, answering the question - Will our kids be a different species? Please take a look, you might learn something today.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
I'm not sure that you understand what evolution is, it makes sense.

By the way loads of animals have this "compass", a small piece of magnetite in their brain, including us.

There were some elegant experiments done in the 1950s with birds in funnels. Yes, we do have this compass. I'm sorry I did not watch the video. It really depresses me how ignorant some evangelical types can be, so I could not bring myself to summon up the tolerance. The holes in the theory of Evolution are very interesting, but usually put forth by idiots who cannot debate. You always lose in a debate against people claiming to back God.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Utter and complete drivel. Show verifiable EVIDENCE of this "word". How about one single iota of verifiable proof of this or any other "god". You can't because there isn't any. God doesn't exist. It is a myth.

There IS however verifiable evidence for evolution.
Start with this for beginners

Then go here





new topics




 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join